]]>There comes a point in the legislative season when those of us who track anti-choice bills start to get a bit bogged down by the onslaught of new legislation. So many bills get proposed that you begin to lose track of which state is banning what. For reporters, the work can be overwhelming.

But for lawmakers, this is the point in the session when tempers get a little shorter, debates get more pointed, and some politicians’ true feelings about both the bills and the people who will be subject to them become more obvious.

That’s the case in Pennsylvania, where a bill to forbid insurance coverage for abortions is up for debate. Like similar bans in other states, the bill would ban abortion coverage in any insurance plan in the state’s health-care exchange, claiming that because the plan is on a state exchange, that leaves it fungibly paid for with taxpayer dollars, even if the plans themselves are paid for by the purchaser.

“Consistent with a majority of Pennsylvanians, the House acted today to ensure no tax dollars are used for elective abortions,” Rep. Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny), the state’s House Majority Leader, said in a statement. His spokesman was more blunt: “If Jane Doe wants extra insurance to fund abortions, Jane Doe can go to Blue Cross and get that separately.”

The dismissive “this is a woman problem” attitude toward basic health-care coverage is epidemic in the current battle over reproductive health-care restrictions, from forced waiting periods to cutting off birth control access.

And the notion that women will “figure it out on their own” drips with contempt for poor individuals, who are most affected by these policies, especially when they will be forced to come up with additional medical expenses out of their own pockets.

In Iowa, an attempt to end Medicaid coverage for abortions for rape victims failed in the state senate, but anti-choice leaders are telling state lawmakers to dig in harder and even hold the budget hostage if necessary. “Several states have accomplished this. It is doable. You are a light in this building. Shine that light,” urged Family Leader Political Director Greg Baker at an anti-choice rally at the capitol, according to the Des Moines Register. Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the Family Leader, agreed, saying, “We don’t need you to be political, but for heaven’s sake we need you to be biblical.”

Politicians will claim that it’s the “choice” they are opposed to, not the women themselves, but in Indiana, the legislature’s latest moves undermine that claim. The state is now considering cuts to its prenatal care program, despite hours of testimony claiming that the latest bill to restrict access to safe abortion by shuttering the only abortion provider covering a large area of Indiana was really about patient safety. Seen as a way to eliminate $40 million in the state budget, the legislature is now reviewing a plan to drop the eligibility level for pregnant women to get Medicaid assistance. According to anti-choice Indiana lawmakers, a single woman making more than $15,000 should have no problem paying for prenatal care out-of-pocket. The state has been seeking budget cuts in order to offer tax breaks to residents and businesses.

When the Indiana abortion bill was debated in the state house, the house speaker repeatedly remarked that providing support for pregnant women was “not germane” to abortion restriction laws. At that time, we had no idea how true that statement really was. Now, as many states reach legislative crunch time, we can expect to see a lot more politicians tell us how they really feel about women.

]]>https://rewire.news/article/2013/04/24/new-abortion-restrictions-show-lawmakers-complete-contempt-for-women/feed/0Georgia State Senator Wants to Ban Abortion Coverage for State Employeeshttps://rewire.news/article/2013/02/11/georgia-state-senator-wants-to-ban-abortion-coverage-for-state-employees/
https://rewire.news/article/2013/02/11/georgia-state-senator-wants-to-ban-abortion-coverage-for-state-employees/#respondMon, 11 Feb 2013 17:21:37 +0000http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/11/georgia-state-senator-wants-to-ban-abortion-coverage-for-state-employees/Georgia wants to join the flood of states trying to force women to give birth by making abortion unaffordable.

]]>Georgia Republican State Senator Judson Hill is hoping to ban abortion coverage in the state health insurance plan, a move that could affect over 600,000 residents who are either employed by or covered by an employee of the state.

Sen. Hill admits that while he would like to ensure that abortions aren’t somehow subsidized by those who are anti-choice, the main impulse behind the bill is his own desire to end abortions, pointing to the death of his own very premature twin children as the impulse driving his beliefs. He told the Marietta Daily Journal, “They lived for about a day, held them, squeezed my finger, and I understand what a 1.4, 1.6 pound baby child of yours is like. That if nothing else solidified my views that these are young lives. These fetuses are real lives.”

Sen. Hill’s ban on insurance coverage would apply in all situations, including in cases of sexual assault, the health of the pregnant woman or girl, and even for fetal anomalies. For many of these abortions, which tend to happen later in pregnancy, that is a much greater expense to be forced to cover out of pocket, and one that is obviously meant to financially coerce a pregnant woman out of terminating.

Using financial roadblocks to cut women off from a constitutional right to an abortion isn’t just for state employees, though. Congressional Republicans have year after year put their clout behind the reauthorization of the Hyde Amendment, the bill that prohibits using Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for poor women unless their lives or health are in danger or, depending on the year, if they became pregnant as a result of a sexual assault.

If you ask an anti-choice politician the reason that the Hyde Amendment exists, they will usually frame it as an issue of taxpayer freedom. According to them, because not all taxpayers believe that women should be allowed to obtain an abortion, no taxpayer funds should ever be allowed to pay for them. The fact that others would be perfectly comfortable or supportive of taxes being used to provide abortion for women who do not wish to carry a pregnancy to term, or that abortion appears to be the only issue where a dislike of an action can be used as a justification for non-funding, doesn’t appear to matter.

But occasionally they will be more honest about the fact Hyde isn’t about allowing taxpayers to have some sort of clean conscience when it comes to abortion funding. It’s in essence about ensuring that poor women are forced to continue pregnancies they don’t want. And in that case, they measure their “victories” not in taxpayers saved from potentially paying for a procedure, but in how many children are born because their mothers had no money to pay for one themselves.

Hugely positive legislation, such as the Hyde Amendment, is distorted. It does not, alas, “prohibit federal funding of abortions,” with the implication that there is a government-wide prohibition. The Hyde Amendment is VERY important—at least one million Americans are alive who would not be otherwise. However it applies to money that flows through the HHS appropriations bill but not, for example, to the federal funds that will subsidize health plans that cover elective abortion under ObamaCare.

Like all anti-choice measures, the Hyde amendment and insurance bans exists only to force women to give birth. Nothing else. If they can’t force everyone not to have an abortion, they can at least force their beliefs and ideology on women too poor to fight back.

]]>For women in Kansas, accessing abortion care is going to become even more difficult. That’s because the American Civil Liberties Union dropped its legal challenge to a Kansas law restricting private health insurance coverage for abortions.

The law prohibits private insurance companies from offering coverage for abortions in their general health insurance plans except for cases when a woman’s life is in danger. Women in Kansas who want abortion coverage must instead buy additional, supplemental coverage. The ACLU had challenged the law, arguing that the Legislature’s predominant motivation in passing the law was to interfere with a woman’s right to chose abortion. The case was set to go to trial in March but on January 7th a federal court ruled that the ACLU had, as a matter of law, failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

“We are disappointed that the court’s decision will stand, despite the fact that the American public believes that politicians have no place interfering with a woman’s personal and private medical decisions,” ACLU attorney Brigitte Amri said to press in response to the filing. “A woman should have the peace of mind of knowing that her insurance will cover her medical needs no matter what happens during her pregnancy.”

This means that, at least in Kansas, the issue of whether restrictions that force women to bear the significant costs of an abortion out-of-pocket create an undue burden on abortion rights are constitutional will not be decided by the court. Instead, the issue has been effectively, settled with the restrictions standing and the ACLU unable to raise the claim the insurance ban is unconstitutional or appealing the judge’s earlier ruling again. It’s a disappointing turn of events in a state where access to reproductive health care is becoming increasingly challenging and questionable.

]]>https://rewire.news/article/2013/01/21/kansas-law-banning-private-insurance-coverage-abortion-will-stand/feed/0ACLU Sues Kansas for Ban on Comprehensive Insurance Coverage Including Abortionhttps://rewire.news/article/2011/08/16/aclu-sues-kansas-comprehensive-insurance-coverage-including-abortion/
Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:31:52 +0000Today the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri brought a challenge against my home state’s ban on comprehensive insurance coverage of abortion. The case was brought on behalf of the ACLU’s members who are losing their abortion coverage as a result of the law – I am one of those members.

]]>Today the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri brought a challenge against my home state’s ban on comprehensive insurance coverage of abortion. The case was brought on behalf of the ACLU’s members who are losing their abortion coverage as a result of the law – I am one of those members. I am also the State Coordinator for Kansas NOW, and a large part of my job is to keep abreast of the Kansas Legislature. I have fought against piece after piece of anti-abortion legislation that has been pushed through in the 2011 session. Every piece of this legislation has become law, rubber stamped by a governor who has promised to promote a “culture of life” within the state. But this so called “culture of life” puts the very health of Kansas women in jeopardy and drastically infringes upon their individual rights.

One of the most outrageous moments of the legislative session came during the debate over the abortion insurance ban. Representative Pete DeGraaf, (who was carrying the bill) was questioned about pregnancies resulting from rape or other unplanned circumstances. Rep DeGraaf replied, “We have to plan in life don’t we? I have a spare tire in my car.” Unbelievably, the representative was comparing unplanned pregnancies (even those resulting from sexual assault) to the inconvenience of a flat tire.

This legislation and this debate certainly caught my attention. The language of the law is particularly restrictive: there is no exception for the health of the woman or if the fetus has anomalies that are incompatible with life. It has no exception for rape or incest. Abortions should be considered medical care that should be a part of any comprehensive insurance plan.

I have an individual insurance policy for which I pay a monthly fee. That monthly payment is an investment in the health and well being of my family. My policy insures that any unforeseen circumstances or life events will be met with some sense of financial security and stability. These unforeseen circumstances should rightly include the termination of a pregnancy. Many things can happen in a pregnancy beyond a woman’s control. A woman needs to know that her insurance will cover abortion care if that is what she needs.

But the law we are challenging takes that coverage away. Abortion coverage may only be offered through a separate rider. I called my insurance company only to find out that my insurance company will not offer an abortion rider for my insurance plan. There is now no way for me to obtain coverage within my insurance company for this legal, medical procedure. This is a direct result of the law. Quite simply, this law inserts politicians into health care, which results in bad health policy for all.

I, for one, am tired of the verbal and legislative assault on women. I am sickened that my daughter and I are unprotected citizens of the state. The door of government infringement upon the lives of women seems to have been left wide open and has an arch large enough for any extreme moral agenda item to pass through. It is with pride that I stand with the ACLU as we attempt to close the door of government infringement.

Thus far, our Kansas courts have brought fair interpretation and analysis to bear on legislation fueled by radical political momentum. I will keep my faith in the judicial system, ever thankful for the balance of power that our system brings. I will stand with the ACLU in gratitude for the opportunity to shed the light of justice in our state where things are often dark for reproductive rights and justice.